CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8031FF69 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B786E84 { width:22.69pt; display:inline-block } .s42842209 { width:186.28pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 20284/13 Frana TERZIĆ against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26   April 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Ksenija Turković,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Milan Blaško, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 March 2013, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Ms Frana Terzić, was a Croatian national, who was born in 1933 and lived in Osijek. She was represented before the Court by Ms I. Ilin, a lawyer practising in Osijek. 2.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention about the refusal of the Supreme Court to examine the merits of her appeal on points of law. 4.     On 8 April 2015 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded on 10 April 2015 to the applicant, who was invited to submit observations in reply by 22 May 2015. 5.     On 29 May 2015 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant died on 1 May 2015 and that her son Mr Tomislav Terzić had expressed his wish to pursue the application. She also requested an extension of the time allowed for submission of the observations by the applicant. 6.     On 29 June 2015 the Court informed the applicant’s representative that the President of the Section had agreed to grant the extension and that the new time-limit was 17 September 2015. She was also requested to send a copy of an authentic document issued by the domestic authorities certifying that the person wishing to pursue the application was the applicant’s legal heir. 7.     No response has been received within the period allowed for submission and no extension of the time-limit has been requested. 8.     On 8 October 2015 the Court by a letter sent by registered mail and delivered to the applicant’s representative on 19 October 2015 reminded the applicant’s representative that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 17 September 2015 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response has been received to that letter and no other heir or any close relative has come forward with a wish to pursue the application. THE LAW 9.     It has been the Court’s practice to strike applications out of the list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application (see Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 44, 30 March 2009). 10.     From the developments set out above it appears that the applicant’s son may be regarded as not wishing to pursue the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, no other heir or close relative has expressed the wish to pursue the application on the applicant’s behalf. 11.     As the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights which require the continued examination of the case, it considers it appropriate to strike the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Done in English and notified in writing on 19 May 2016.   Milan Blaško   Paul Lemmens Acting Deputy Registrar   President